Jerome Larkin, Administrator of the Attorney
Registration and Disciplinary Commission, by his attorney, Emily A. Adams,
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 753(b), complains of Respondent, Michael Joseph
Finn, who was licensed to practice law in Illinois on May 6, 2004, and alleges
that Respondent has engaged in the following conduct which tends to defeat the
administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into
disrepute, and which subjects Respondent to discipline pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule 770:

COUNT I
(Neglect, misrepresentation and failure to correct misrepresentation to court)

1. On or about July 16, 2010, Respondent agreed to represent Kenneth Clark
(hereinafter "Clark") in Clark's appeal of his criminal conviction for
possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute. Clark was sentenced to
240 months in the federal penitentiary. The matter was captioned United
States v. Kenneth Clark and was assigned case number 10-2254 (hereinafter
"Clark's appeal"). Respondent did not represent Clark during Clark's trial, but
only represented Clark after he was convicted. Respondent was paid $15,000 for
his representation of Clark in Clark's appeal.

2. As part of Respondent's agreement to represent Clark in his appeal,
Respondent was to file an appellate brief, a reply brief to the government's
brief, and represent Clark at oral argument in the appeal. Respondent paid a
brief writer $5,000 to prepare drafts of the appellate brief and reply brief.

3. On or about December 13, 2010, Respondent filed the appellate brief in
Clark's appeal. On or about March 14, 2011, the United States filed its brief in
Clark's appeal. On or about March 28, 2011, Respondent filed Clark's reply brief
to the United States' brief.

4. On or about March 18, 2011, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
(hereinafter "the court") issued an order in Clark's appeal setting oral
arguments for April 14, 2011 at 10:30 a.m. in front of Judge Easterbrook, Judge
Rovner, and Judge Sykes. Respondent received the order shortly thereafter.

5. At no time before April 14, 2011 had Respondent presented an entire oral
argument on his own before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

6. On April 14, 2011, at approximately 9:50 a.m., Respondent phoned the
clerk's office and spoke to an employee at the Clerk's office named Andrew
Burke. Respondent informed the clerk's office that he was ill, that he had
vomited earlier in the morning, and that he did not feel well enough to come to
court that morning.

7. Respondent's statements that he was ill, that he had vomited earlier in
the morning, and that he did not feel well enough to come to court were false,
and Respondent knew they were false because at no time was Respondent ill on the
morning of April 14, 2011. Rather, Respondent did not appear for oral arguments
because he felt unprepared.

8. The clerk's office informed Respondent to keep his phone on should the
court require Respondent to appear for oral argument despite Respondent's
statements that he was ill. Although the clerk's office subsequently contacted
Respondent to tell him that his appearance was required, Respondent did not
answer his phone or return phone messages left for him by the clerk's office.

9. On April 14, 2011, the court held oral arguments in Clark's appeal. An
attorney for the United States was present and argued its position. At no time
did Respondent, or anyone, appear on behalf of Clark to present an oral argument
on Clark's behalf.

10. On April 14, 2011, the court issued an order requiring Respondent to show
cause why he should not be subject to professional discipline due to his failure
to appear for oral arguments in Clark's appeal and for failing to submit an
appendix containing a transcript of the district court's ruling in compliance
with Circuit Rule 30(a). The court's April 14, 2011 order stated, "[i]f
[Respondent] believes that he was medically unable to perform his professional
obligations, he must supply appropriate medical documentation, such as a
certificate showing his admission to a hospital's emergency room."

11. On or about April 28, 2011, Respondent filed his response to the court's
April 14, 2011 order, mentioned in paragraph 10, above. At no time did
Respondent correct the false statements he made to the clerk's office that he
was ill, had vomited on the morning of April 14, 2011, and did not feel well
enough to attend oral arguments. Also, at no time did Respondent inform the
court that the reason he did not appear for oral arguments was because he felt
unprepared to argue Clark's appeal. At no time did he provide the court with
medical documentation, as the court requested in paragraph 10, above.

12. On or about September 15, 2011, the court issued its final opinion in
Clark's appeal. Due to Respondent's failure to appear for oral argument, the
court never heard oral argument on Clark's behalf. The court affirmed Clark's
conviction for possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute. The court
further concluded that Respondent had acted unprofessionally and publicly
censured Respondent and fined him $1,000.

13. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the
following misconduct:

failure to act with reasonable diligence
and promptness in representing a client, in violation of Rule 1.3 of
the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (1990);

knowingly making a false statement of
fact or law to a tribunal, in violation of Rule 3.3(a)(1) of the
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010);

failing to correct a false statement of
material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer,
in violation of Rule 3.3(a)(1) of the Illinois Rules of Professional
Conduct (2010);

conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit, or misrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010);

conduct which is prejudicial to the
administration of justice, in violation of Rule 8.4(d) of the
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); and

conduct which tends to defeat the
administration of justice or bring the courts or legal profession
into disrepute.

COUNT II
(Misrepresentation to client)

14. The Administrator realleges paragraphs 1-13,
above.

15. On or about October 4, 2011, Respondent drafted
and sent a letter to Clark informing Clark of the court's opinion, referred to
in paragraph 12, above. In that letter, Respondent stated,

I was publicly censured by the court for
failing to appear for oral arguments for your case. I was ill the morning
oral arguments were scheduled to be heard. I notified the court that I was
ill and unable to come to court. Please be assured that I did not "abandon"
you as the court states.

16. Respondent's statements as referred to in paragraph 15, above, were false
and Respondent knew they were false because Respondent was not ill the morning
oral arguments were scheduled to be heard, but did not appear for oral arguments
because he felt unprepared.

17. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the
following misconduct:

conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit, or misrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010);

conduct that is prejudicial to the
administration of justice, in violation of Rule 8.4(d) of the
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); and

conduct which tends to defeat the
administration of justice or bring the courts or legal profession
into disrepute.

COUNT III
(Misrepresentation to the Administrator)

18. The Administrator realleges paragraphs 1-17, above.

19. On or about September 16, 2011, the Administrtor received a copy of the
court's opinion referred to in paragraph 12, above. The Administrator docketed
the matter as investigation number 2011IN04197. On September 22, 2011, counsel
for the Administrator sent a letter to Respondent that enclosed the court's
opinion and requested that Respondent submit a written response.

20. On November 2, 2011, Respondent sent a response letter to counsel for the
Administrator. In his letter, Respondent explained his failure to appear for
oral arguments in Clark's matter and stated,

On the evening of April 13, 2011, I went to bed
with a headache and with a queasy feeling in my stomach. During the night, I
had cold sweats and had difficulty sleeping. On the morning of April 14,
2011, I got out of bed sometime around 5:00 AM. I went to the bathroom and
vomited. I went back to bed and got up again around 8:30 AM. Although I felt
much better at this time, I thought I was not well enough to go to court.
After going back and forth about it, I decided to stay home.

* * *

I simply was ill on a critical day of court for
my client. In retrospect, I believe I was medically able to participate in
oral arguments, but it was a close call and at the time I thought that I was
too ill.

21. Respondent's statements referred to in paragraph 20, above, were false
and Respondent knew they were false because Respondent was not ill on the
evening of April 13, 2011 or the morning of April 14, 2011. He did not vomit and
he was well enough to go to court. Respondent did not go to court because he
felt unprepared to argue Clark's appeal.

22. On or about March 1, 2012, the Administrator received a written report
and relevant records from Clark related to the allegations in paragraphs 1-17,
above. The Administrator docketed the matter as investigation number
2012IN01132. On March 14, 2012, counsel for the Administrator sent a letter to
Respondent that enclosed Clark's letter and enclosures and requested that
Respondent submit a written response.

23. On April 19, 2012, Respondent sent a response letter to counsel for the
Administrator. In his letter, Respondent explained his failure to appear for
oral arguments in Clark's matter and stated,

On the evening of April 13, 2011, I went to bed
with a headache and with a queasy feeling in my stomach. During the night, I
had cold sweats and had difficulty sleeping. On the morning of April 14,
2011, I got out of bed sometime around 5:00 AM. I went to the bathroom and
vomited. I went back to bed and got up again around 8:30 AM. Although I felt
much better at this time, I thought I was not well enough to go to court.
After going back and forth about it, I decided to stay home.

24. Respondent's statements referred to in paragraph 23, above, were false
and Respondent knew they were false because Respondent was not ill on the
evening of April 13, 2011 or the morning of April 14, 2011. He did not vomit and
he was well enough to go to court. Respondent did not go to court because he
felt unprepared to argue Clark's appeal.

25. On October 9, 2012, Respondent appeared at the Attorney Registration and
Disciplinary Commission for a sworn statement. During that sworn statement,
Respondent was asked the following questions and gave the following answers:

Q. And did you attend oral argument?

A. I did not.

Q. Why not?

A. Because the morning of oral argument I was
ill. And I didn't think that I was well enough to participate in oral
argument.

***

Q. Did you think that your not coming to oral
arguments, did you think that would affect your client's case at all?

A. I did not - - I didn't know. At that time I
just knew I was sick and that I made a decision that I wasn't well enough to
get in my car and drive to be in court with other people or to argue. I
thought I might - - I mean, I did not vomit again that day, but I thought -
- I was still feeling sick, and I just made a decision that I was too sick
to go. And it didn't - - you know, I think now, though, when I look back at
it, I think I probably should have gone. And like I said, I - - I didn't
vomit again. I felt better after I threw up. I didn't go to the hospital. I
- - so - - but not, I didn't consider whether or not it was going to harm
Mr. Clark's appeal. I just knew that I - - or I thought I couldn't go to
court.

***

Q. And why didn't you answer your phone?

A. Because I was sick. I went to bed. I did not
want to take phone calls.

***

Q. And you didn't appear because you thought
you were too sick; is that right?

A. Right.

Q. Okay.

A. On the day of - - that I called them, I
thought I was too sick to appear.

***

A. I mean, I went to bed April 13th, the night
before oral arguments with a headache. And I gradually started to realize I
was getting sick. I got cold sweats, I got chills, I did not sleep. It's not
- - I wasn't in any condition to write a motion at that time. I - - the only
thing that was on my mind is what - - am I going to be able to go to oral
arguments. And after I vomited, I did feel better. And I considered going to
oral arguments. I thought that I - - I was starting to think I could do
this, then I decided no, I can't. Ultimately I decided not to go.

26. Respondent's statements during his sworn statement, referred to in
paragraph 25, above, were false, and Respondent knew they were false because on
April 13, 2011 and April 14, 2011 Respondent was not ill and had not vomited. He
did not attend oral arguments because he did not feel prepared to argue Clark's
appeal.

27. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the
following misconduct:

making a statement of material fact known
by the lawyer to be false, in connection with a lawyer disciplinary
matter, in violation of Rule 8.1(a) of the Illinois Rules of
Professional Conduct (2010);

conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010);

conduct that is prejudicial to the
administration of justice, in violation of Rule 8.4(d) of the
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); and

conduct which tends to defeat the
administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal
profession into disrepute.

WHEREFORE, the Administrator requests that this
matter be assigned to a panel of the Hearing Board, that a hearing be held, and
that the panel make findings of fact, conclusions of fact and law, and a
recommendation for such discipline as is warranted.